Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
blabbered:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> > wrote:
>
>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>> product????
>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>
>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>
> The history books know more than we can ever tell.

lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid
smelly ****, not history books.


>> let's take a leaf out of her
>> book:
>
> <snip irrelevant dribble>
>
> She just told you

She spouted bullshit, as ever.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>blabbered:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>> product????
>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>
>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>
>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>
>lesley pretends to

Make you look like a chimp? not half as cute though.

On 14 Mar, 17:17, Campaign for Fresh Air
> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>
> > wrote:
> >On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
> >> > On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >> > Just a quick aside he
>
> >> > Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
> >> > product????
>
> >>http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>
> >> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>
> >Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>
> The history books know more than we can ever tell. Why would you have
> an aversion to established history?
>
> > let's take a leaf out of her
> >book:
>
> <snip irrelevant dribble>
>
> She just told you what it means in her case, so why look for another
> reason that's untrue and pointless?

All she gave the link to was about the mythological meanings given to
pearls. All that changes not one iota of what their origin is. They
still are an animal product - no matter what people dreamed up about
them.

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> wrote:

>On 14 Mar, 17:17, Campaign for Fresh Air
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>> >> > On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Just a quick aside he
>>
>> >> > Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>> >> > product????
>>
>> >>http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>
>> >> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>
>> >Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>
>> The history books know more than we can ever tell. Why would you have
>> an aversion to established history?
>>
>> > let's take a leaf out of her
>> >book:
>>
>> <snip irrelevant dribble>
>>
>> She just told you what it means in her case, so why look for another
>> reason that's untrue and pointless?
>
>All she gave

was the reason for her name. That's it so stop looking for trouble or
you'll just end up being treated like the other dicks we have here.

So where were we?

On 14 Mar, 17:48, Campaign for Fresh Air
> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On 14 Mar, 17:17, Campaign for Fresh Air
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
> >> >> > On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Just a quick aside he
>
> >> >> > Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
> >> >> > product????
>
> >> >>http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>
> >> >> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>
> >> >Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>
> >> The history books know more than we can ever tell. Why would you have
> >> an aversion to established history?
>
> >> > let's take a leaf out of her
> >> >book:
>
> >> <snip irrelevant dribble>
>
> >> She just told you what it means in her case, so why look for another
> >> reason that's untrue and pointless?
>
> >All she gave
>
> was the reason for her name. That's it so stop looking for trouble or
> you'll just end up being treated like the other dicks we have here.
>
> So where were we?

Dunno 'bout you, but I'm off to the pub as my working time is almost
over. Fight you lot again on Monday - if work does not interfere with
my hobbies.

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> wrote:

>On 14 Mar, 17:48, Campaign for Fresh Air
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On 14 Mar, 17:17, Campaign for Fresh Air
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>> >> >> > On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Just a quick aside he
>>
>> >> >> > Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>> >> >> > product????
>>
>> >> >>http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>
>> >> >> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>
>> >> >Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>
>> >> The history books know more than we can ever tell. Why would you have
>> >> an aversion to established history?
>>
>> >> > let's take a leaf out of her
>> >> >book:
>>
>> >> <snip irrelevant dribble>
>>
>> >> She just told you what it means in her case, so why look for another
>> >> reason that's untrue and pointless?
>>
>> >All she gave
>>
>> was the reason for her name. That's it so stop looking for trouble or
>> you'll just end up being treated like the other dicks we have here.
>>
>> So where were we?
>
>Dunno 'bout you, but I'm off to the pub as my working time is almost
>over. Fight you lot again on Monday - if work does not interfere with
>my hobbies.

Don't drink too much lest you fall out the tree ;-)

In article >, Oz
> wrote:

> >> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species than is
> >> cultivable land?
> >
> >Well, which is more fertile on average?
> >>
> >
> >marginal land does tend to be marginal because of low fertility, and
> >also because it has been farmed less, as farming can increase the
> >fertility over time if you are doing it right

> Its also worth remembering that, like humans, wildlife crops biomass.
> Fertile soils produce more biomass than infertile ones and thus ought to
> have more wildlife.

And wild animals that can utilise this extra biomass do well with it.
Wood pigeons are one example

> Of course this isn't true where plants have gained the upper hand, pine
> forest for example, where biodiversity is low and non-plants relatively
> scarce compared to non-forest.

I think if you were to assess the flora and fauna of the forest carefully,
there would be more species there than a cereal field of the same area.
In terms of biomass, also I suspect because pine trees etc are pretty
heavy.

In reality conservationists will be more interested in the Caledonian
Forest because the life that occurs in cereal fields is commonplace,
whereas there will be a lot of scarcer species in the forest.

Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
blabbered:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>> blabbered:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>> product????
>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>
> Make you look like a chimp?

No, she pretends to be citing science texts, as I
wrote, chimp.

Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
blabbered:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> > wrote:
>
>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization blabbered:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>> product????
>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell. Why would you have
>>> an aversion to established history?
>>>
>>>> let's take a leaf out of her
>>>> book:
>>> <snip irrelevant dribble>
>>>
>>> She just told you what it means in her case, so why look for another
>>> reason that's untrue and pointless?
>> All she gave
>
> was

bullshit, as usual.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>blabbered:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>> blabbered:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>
>> Make you look like a chimp?
>
>No, she pretends to be citing science

No. She makes you look like a chimp.

Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
blabbered:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>> blabbered:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>> blabbered:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>
> No.

Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
or understand science.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:49:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>blabbered:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>> blabbered:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>or understand science.

Neither can chimps.

Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
blabbered:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:49:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>> blabbered:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>> blabbered:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>> No.
>> Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>> obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>> or understand science.
>
> Neither can chimps.

Another ****witted pete comment - just what we expect
from a willfully stupid and self-marginalized ****wit.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:31:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>blabbered:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:49:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>> blabbered:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>>>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>>> No.
>>> Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>>> obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>>> or understand science.
>>
>> Neither can chimps.
>
>Another ****witted pete comment - just what we expect
>from a willfully stupid and self-marginalized ****wit.

Have you ever had a tea party with your cousins?
http://tinyurl.com/39quwb

Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
blabbered:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:31:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>> blabbered:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:49:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>> blabbered:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>>>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>>>>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>>>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>>>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>>>> No.
>>>> Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>>>> obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>>>> or understand science.
>>> Neither can chimps.
>> Another ****witted pete comment - just what we expect
>>from a willfully stupid and self-marginalized ****wit.
>
> Have you ever beat the shit out of a lying ****stain "vegan"?

Yes, daily. You're the most recent one.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:37:44 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>blabbered:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:31:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>> blabbered:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:49:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>>>>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>>>>>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>>>>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>>>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>>>>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>>>>> obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>>>>> or understand science.
>>>> Neither can chimps.
>>> Another ****witted pete comment - just what we expect
>>>from a willfully stupid and self-marginalized ****wit.
>>
>> Have you ever beat the shit out of a lying ****stain "vegan"?
>
>Yes, daily. You're the most recent one.

Donut tell lies Jonny.

Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
blabbered:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:37:44 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>> blabbered:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:31:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>> blabbered:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:49:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:20:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>>>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick aside he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product????
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,
>>>>>>>>>>> The history books know more than we can ever tell.
>>>>>>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>>>>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>>>>>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>>>>>> obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>>>>>> or understand science.
>>>>> Neither can chimps.
>>>> Another ****witted pete comment - just what we expect
>>> >from a willfully stupid and self-marginalized ****wit.
>>>
>>> Have you ever beat the shit out of a lying ****stain "vegan"?
>> Yes, daily. You're the most recent one.
>
> Donut

Your head.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >
>> > IOW... this less fertile 'marginal' land has "always" been grazed.
>>
>> no,
>
> ##
>> Jim Webster wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>>>>>> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
>>>>>> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
>>>>>> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>>>>>
>>>>> nonsense, you forget these landscapes were created by grazing, in
>>>>> the UK water meadows, grazing marshes and the Lakeland fells and
>>>>> uplands are all created by grazing animals
>>>>
>>>> What was there before?
>>>
>>> when?
> ##
>
>> because some marginal land is used for forestry and even ploughed
>
> More recently - "a lot was done after the war" - just below.

yes, you have a problem with this, I've seen the rigs where some of it was
ploughed with horses

>
>> > And what's been said about such grazing and land degradation..?
>> >
>> > Basically, jim, you're well and truly hoisted by your own petard.
>>
>> no, you just don't understand what you are talking about I'm afraid.
>> The increased fertility of the lowlands is also due to grazing, grazing
>> can
>> be used to improve land where land is capable of being improved through
>> grazing. Much fell land can be improved by grazing, the adding of lime
>> and
>> similar, a lot was done after the war, which means it is now inbye and
>> ploughable.
>
> IOW, so called marginal land can be used for horticulture. Very good.

certainly, it can,
If you are prepared to live with no electric or running water, no access
where they lived a thousand years ago, their garden plot is the small level
bit next to the tumble of stones. In many cases it might be twenty yards by
twenty. Near by you can see their arable field, which was bigger and
probably dug by spade.

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> no, you just don't understand what you are talking about I'm afraid.
>> The increased fertility of the lowlands is also due to grazing, grazing
>> can
>> be used to improve land where land is capable of being improved through
>> grazing
>
> 'Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
> more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
> masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland
> produces the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most
> resistance to soil erosion. Livestock production has damaged
> the Earth's grassland more than has any other land use,

absolutely, because when you plough it isn;t grassland therefore cannot be
damaged
Do try and be relevent

Jim Webster

On Mar 13, 1:20*am, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> On Mar 9, 8:42 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> > > On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > > > --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> > > > wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> > > Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> > > that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> > > animals like sheep?
>
> > > ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> > > wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> > > Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>
> > Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
> > interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
> > the observation that land has value to animals as well
> > as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> > majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
> > than the hills and moors?
>
> > ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
> contention anyhow.
>
> --- With certainty, a substantial area could be woodland...

Probably. It's still not as fertile as most of our cropland though...
>
> 'Data on new woodland planting can give an indication of
> the growth in woodland area across the country, which has
> an important influence on landscape, biodiversity and water.
>
> It is likely that a greater proportion of marginal land on
> which production has become less profitable will be entered
> into Environmental Stewardship, set-aside or left fallow.
> Another alternative for this land is woodland.
> ..'http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/df2_fact.htm*-----
>
> > "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> > an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> > peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> > vegetables 15 times more."
>
> I've seen a spread of estimates. Growing crops for animals
> is an inefficient use of land. Grazing animals is also inefficient
> *assuming* that the land in question is cultivatable...
>
> --- Even if not, when needs can be met without grazing. ---

I'm not arguing any imperative for animal farming.
>
> > Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
> > to produce human-consumable plant foods. Going by the
> > above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
> > 75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
> > 10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
> > grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.
>
> Two problems with the analysis though correcting the
> first would actually make your case stronger. A: You should
> be measuring calories per acre rather than protein per acre.
>
> --- lol. *If measured in calories, you'd ask for protein...

Why would I do that - are energy requirements measured in protein?
Anyway by using protein instead you are actually understating your
case....

> 'For every 3,000 calories in the form of corn that are fed
> to a cow, only 600 are returned in milk; if the meat is
> eaten, only 120 calories are available for human use.
> ..'http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-7409377.html
>
> - 1/25th.
>
> Here's a direct estimate of land needed:
>
> 'Depending on the type of meat, it takes 6-17 times more
> land to feed the average American meat eater than to feed
> a vegetarian.30
> ..
> 30 L. Reijinders and Sam Soret, PhDs 2003,
> ..'http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html-----

Ok.
>
> B: You should consider the % of world agricultural land or if
> you want to consider just the food needs of the UK, the %
> of agricultural land used to grow food for consumption in
> the UK. % agricultural land in the UK is meaningless in
> this context given how much crosses national borders.
>
> --- It's not meaningless to consider the current situation
> within the UK, and what the alternatives would look like.
> As for the imports, we'd calculate using the same ratios of
> protein, calories or land, substituting animal feed with food. ---

> > And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
> > Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.
>
> If we stopped growing mono-crops for animal feed it would
> indeed free up vast areas for nature. If we use marginal lands
> to raise animals it would free up fertile areas for nature.
> Admittedly the acreage of fertile areas would be considerably
> smaller than the acreage of marginal lands taken up but
> then again the fertile areas can support more wildlife per acre
> than the marginal. No?
>
> --- *What do you mean by 'marginal'? *Any of the following?
>
> 'Around 37% of the land on agricultural holdings is considered
> to be croppable land, i.e. land currently under crops, set-aside,
> bare fallow or temporary grass. Almost half of this croppable
> area is occupied by cereal crops. Horticultural crops (including
> vegetables, orchards, soft fruit and crops grown under glass)
> account for just 1% of the area on agricultural holdings.
> Permanent grassland and sole right rough grazing accounts for
> 57% of the area on agricultural holdings - see Figure 1.
>
> Cereal crops 17%
> Other arable crops 8%
> Horticultural crops 1%
> Fallow land 1%
> Set-aside 3%
> Temporary grass 7%
> Permanent grassland 33%
> Sole right rough grazing 24%
> Woodland 4%
> All other land 2%
>
> Figure 1: A breakdown of the total area on agricultural holdings
> as at June 2007
> ..'http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/june_uk.pdf
>
> More detailed figures at link.

Marginal in this context is any food not suitable for arable farming.

> <..>
>
> > Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
> > rotations,
> > so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
> > season?
>
> > ----- Again, large herbivores really do need a lot of land,
> > so with a herd of any size, you require a large acreage of
> > pasture. That's vast areas of grass, likely seeded as grass
> > and sprayed with herbicides, and even grazed once a year
> > will prevent regeneration of natural flora - food and shelter.
> > In addition, to protect 'livestock' and feed, farmers will
> > often kill native wild predators, 'competitors' and 'pests'.
> > ----
>
> How is the killing of native wild predators, 'competitors'
> and pests to protect livestock different to farmers killing
> pests to protect their crops?
>
> --- Can you give some examples of that in the UK? --

Oh come on Pearl, you can't seriously believe that it doesn't
happen. Try asking an arable farmer what pesticides are for
and how he prevents rabbits from eating his crops.

> > > > > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> > > > I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> > > > me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> > > > briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> > > > ---
> > > > But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".
>
> > > Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.
>
> > > --- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.
>
> > > "They have moral rights."
>
> > The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
> > consuming animal fats in all circumstances.
>
> > --- Meaning, as a last resort to survive?
>
> I guess when I talk of animals having rights I mean that
> we have an obligation to high welfare standards for the
> animals we raise. I don't treat animal life as sanctitious.
>
> --- There's no such word. *If you mean "sanctified"...

I just coined one
>
> 'sanc·ti·fy
> ..
> 4. To give social or moral sanction to.
> ..'http://www.answers.com/sanctified&r=67
>
> 'sanc·tion
> ..
> 3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates
> * *an ethical choice.
> ..http://www.answers.com/sanction
>
> The moral rights you claim they have conveniently end
> at the point where you get to have your fat fix, isn't it. *----
>
> > Are you? ---
>
> > > "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"
>
> > Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
> > from cruel animal practices.
>
> > --- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---
>
> Compared with natural deaths?
>
> --- Compared to not slaughtering animals. ---

OK.
>
> > > > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> > > Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > > > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> > > Remind me....
>
> > > --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> > > ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---
>
> > Yup. I will try to find it.
>
> > --- Here you go:
>
> > 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> > state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> > generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> > problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> > stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> > of the real situation.
>
> > 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> > 20% are moderately exploited
> > 17% are overexploited
> > 7% are depleted
> > 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> > The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> > are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> > exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> > (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> > total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> > exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> > 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> > ..
> > We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> > the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> > at risk of collapse.
> > ..'http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php
> > ----
>
> This is not an indication that we can't fish sustainably but
> that in many cases we don't. It seems highly improbable that
> from an area of over 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, there is
> not enough fish to make a meaningful contribution to our diet.
> Indeed we have harvested the oceans for millenia and it's only
> in recent years that overfishing has become a problem.
>
> --- There are over 6 billion humans now. ---
>
> Nor is the problem simply down to population growth - if it were
> we could simply reduce fish consumption per person so that
> total fish consumption remained constant.
>
> --- ~6 billion fish a week? *You think that's acceptable? ---

Most probably, assuming sufficient variety and appropriate fishing
methods.
>
> Problems: fishing
> is now highly efficient, and can easily locate and wipe out whole
> swarms at a time. Modern methods: (a) have significant bycatch,
> which is wasteful if nothing else, (b) in some cases damage the
> seabed thus harming populations not directly affected (c) target
> a limited number of species heavily. There are over 100 edible
> species surrounding the UK shores. How many do we eat in
> significant quantities? *(d) frequently target long-living,
> slow-reproducing species
>
> --- We don't need any. *Marine life *needs to recover*. *---

I realise we don't need to eat marine life but if we don't we need
more land....
>
> However just as with meat and vegetables, one can choose
> which fish to eat thus avoiding the problems described above.
> At the very least we can eat less popular species and/or
> species with greater reproduction rates. We can choose line
> caught fish or hand picked shellfish. We can choose fish that
> is recognized by the marine stewardship conservastion trust
> as being from sustainable sources.
>
> --- You think ~60 million fish a week for the UK is ok? ---

Given appropriate choice of species and fishing methods, most
probably.

> > > > Would you be prepared to have done to you what you
> > > > seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing to others?
>
> > > You mean being killed for food? Nope.
>
> So tell me now, Dave.. how can you so easily have done
> to others what you wouldn't want to have done to you?

Partly because I don't value human and animal life at the same.
I won't try to put a finger on precisely what it is and maybe it is
simply that I know the umwelt of a human but not of a cow but
our lives seem to have more "depth". I kind of think of animal life
as precious but on the collective rather than the individual level.

That said, you have asked a very good question. Eating meat is
a violation of the golden rule, or at least some version of it so I
need
some sort of justification to consider it a special case. My favourite
rationalising is that a herbivorous animal propulation needs some
method of keeping numbers in control and why is predation by
humans a worse choice than predation by natural predators,
starvation or disease?

On Mar 10, 10:35*pm, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 8, 10:31 pm, Oz > wrote:
>
> > Buxqi > writes
>
> > >Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My interest in ecological
> > >efficiency is based largely upon the observation that land has value to
> > >animals as well as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> > >majority
> > >of cropland could support much more wildlife than the hills and moors?
>
> > Yes, of course that is true. Simply on biomass production.
>
> > Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
> > completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> > former means more food AND more wildlife.
>
> "On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
> comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional
> farming, measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years. The
> bottom line: Organic farms can be nearly as productive as regular
> farms for some crops,
>
> --------------
> A lot of qualifiers have crept in there, 'nearly' and 'some'
> Remember the figures, we need a world wheat crop that is at least between
> 620 and 640 million tons. If it is under 620 the results are going to be
> very bad indeed, the prices will rocket. The current estimate/hope is that
> we might even be on line for 642 million tons
> If the 'nearly' and 'some' mean a mere 10% loss of yield then we are down
> below 580 million tonnes and people are going to go very hungry indeed.

20% land increase could be more than cancelled by eating less
meat.....
>
> *and they leave soils healthier. The study also
> conclusively demonstrates that for most crops, organic plots are more
> energy efficient per unit crop."http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/296/5573/1589a
>
> ----------
> The healthier might or might not be argued, it depends on the soils health,
> another problem is with the 'energy efficient per unit crop'
> What on earth is a unit crop?
> Indeed conventional agriculture is almost certainly not optimised for energy
> efficiency, it is optimised for output because we have people to feed.

That's a fair point but one also has to ask whether this is a bit
short termist when
most of our energy is generated from non-renewable sources.

>
> Jim Webster

On Mar 11, 7:43*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Torsten Brinch wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000, Oz >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Buxqi > writes
> >>> "On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
> >>> comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
> >>> measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.
> >> Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.
>
> >http://orgprints.org/5514/
>
> Important finding stated at that site: *"We found crop
> yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems".
>
> So...who gets the privilege of starving due to 20%
> lower yields?

Oh, so you suddenly care how many people an acre can feed?

On Mar 14, 7:53*am, Oz > wrote:
> Jim Webster > writes
>
>
>
> >"Buxqi" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
> >> than is cultivable land?
>
> >Well, which is more fertile on average?
>
> >marginal land does tend to be marginal because of low fertility, and also
> >because it has been farmed less, as farming can increase the fertility over
> >time if you are doing it right
>
> Its also worth remembering that, like humans, wildlife crops biomass.
> Fertile soils produce more biomass than infertile ones and thus ought to
> have more wildlife.

Exactly! Thank you.
>
> Of course this isn't true where plants have gained the upper hand, pine
> forest for example, where biodiversity is low and non-plants relatively
> scarce compared to non-forest.

Am I right in thinking that a mixed-diciduous woodland would compare
quite favourably from this perspective though? Lot's of biomass and
diversity
there.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message news:4f874bd9-3dd7-4429-841a-.

20% land increase could be more than cancelled by eating less
meat.....
>

in the UK poverty will probably achieve this. In countries like China they
are determined to eat more.
Actually cutting the population would be more useful because it would cut
the total quantity of resources used by people.


> and they leave soils healthier. The study also
> conclusively demonstrates that for most crops, organic plots are more
> energy efficient per unit
> crop."http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/296/5573/1589a
>
> ----------
> The healthier might or might not be argued, it depends on the soils
> health,
> another problem is with the 'energy efficient per unit crop'
> What on earth is a unit crop?
> Indeed conventional agriculture is almost certainly not optimised for
> energy
> efficiency, it is optimised for output because we have people to feed.

That's a fair point but one also has to ask whether this is a bit
short termist when
most of our energy is generated from non-renewable sources.


Exactly which brings us back to the beginning of the debate, energy, metals
and oil are all potentially limiting factors. To try and talk about
sustainable agriculture without having a population which is sustainable
from the point of those three (I put oil and energy separately because oil
can do more than just energy) is merely silly.

Get a population that is sustainable from the point of view of those three
and I suspect that you would find you can farm comparatively traditionally
with more mixed farming, proper animal, arable rotations etc

Jim Webster

Buxqi > writes

>That's a fair point but one also has to ask whether this is a bit short
>termist when most of our energy is generated from non-renewable sources.

Its not as simple as that. The thing that most forget is that farmers
are actually farming sunlight. That is the source of the energy they
sell, and all food (and even non-food like cotton) is basically energy.

The most productive sources are cereals. These produce the biggest
usable biomass output per acre with a few others such as sugar cane,
potatoes and sugar beet coming in the same league.

Without modern high input farming yields of all of these are low,
typically high inputs deliver two to three times the output per acre,
which is to say they harvest sunlight two to three times more
efficiently.

The question is whether the higher inputs are justifiable in energy
terms. A huge amount of total rubbish is said about this. I am going to
use a sub-optimal crop (oilseed rape) because as the main product is
oil, its easy to get a handle on it.

Oilseed rape typically yields 3.5T/Ha producing about 1T/Ha of straw,
1.5T of oil and 2T of a high protein feed meal.

Lets just take the oil first.
Typically one might use under 200L of diesel in the tractor for this.
One applies about 150kg of N or 350kg of urea with an oil cost of circa
200kg (typically 25GJ/T). P & K usage is much less, around 100kg.

Total application of pesticides is low, well under 10kg/Ha which even
with a 10x loading only amounts to 100kg even if they were oil (and they
aren't, most id R&D and profit).

So, roughly, we have a direct energy cost of around 700kg of oil.

If you feel enthused you can add another 100kg for the energy cost of
building tractors and equipment. That is 800kg.

So we have

Energy input/Ha : 800kg oil equivalents

Energy output/Ha : 2400kg oil equivalents
1500kg oil
1000kg of burnable straw worth 300kh oil
2000kg of high protein feedstock worth about 600kg oil.

Energy gain 1600kg/Ha oil equivalents.
Gain energy in/energy out = 300%

Now an organic system is not going to be energy input free.
In fact its inputs are energetically expensive because they are all low
nutrient density bulk processed manures. Furthermore they will be
exchanging low energy cost herbicides with high energy cost cultivations
and taking a yield hit from the insects and diseases because you can't
control them other than by strategic measures like drilling late (lower
yields) or having widely separated small (1-2ac) fields (high machinery
cost). Just carting in, loading and spreading 25T/Ha of manure is going
to use some 100kg oil/ha (if its close) even before the cost of carting
the manure to store and composting it etc etc in the first place.

I would be quite surprised if you managed (overall) under 300kg of
diesel and 100kg for infrastructure. Then you will still need some
ammonium sulphate, which is energetically much more expensive than urea
lets say 100kh oil worth (because you will be applying much less).

Total organic energy cost is thus: 500kg. Quite a but less than the
conventional. However you will be lucky, year on year, to beat 2.0T/Ha
(and quite often you won;t be able to harvest it, or yields will be well
under 1T if pests or diseases get a hold).

So we have

Energy input: 500kg/Ha oil

Energy output: 1400 kg oil equivalents
860 kg oil
200 kg straw equivalent
340 kg protein feedstock equivalent

Energy gain = 900 kg/Ha
Energy gain = 180%.

Hmm, I'm a little surprised by that. From what's bandied about organic
is claimed to be better in efficiency terms than conventional. I suspect
people ignore the rather high energy cost of handling and processing
large amounts of bulk manures.

My point, though was that energy GAIN per Ha is always (and usually
much) higher in conventional to organic systems. This is simply because
the crop is fed at a more optimal level to trap and utilise the maximum
sunlight . So if you want to maximise the NET energy you harvest then
conventional wins hands down.

Also note that as yields drop (poorer weather, worse soils etc)
conventional and organic come closer together. For the best soils and
good growing conditions they will be even further apart than my little
exercise above.




--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Robert Seago > writes
>
>I think if you were to assess the flora and fauna of the forest carefully,
>there would be more species there than a cereal field of the same area.

Almost certainly.

>In
>terms of biomass, also I suspect because pine trees etc are pretty heavy.

Its biomass production per year, that's what is available for
saphrophytes/parasites to utilise in a stable system.

>In reality conservationists will be more interested in the Caledonian Forest
>because the life that occurs in cereal fields is commonplace, whereas there
>will be a lot of scarcer species in the forest.

Absolutely.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Buxqi > writes

>Am I right in thinking that a mixed-diciduous woodland would compare quite
>favourably from this perspective though? Lot's of biomass and
>diversity

Mixed deciduous tends to be unstable and end up as one species or
another. It also tends to tertiary forest and more limited biodiversity.

Ideally you want patches of woodland of mixed species and varying levels
of maturity interspersed with sunny glades and field edges. You will
want some very large fields (for hares, skylarks etc), some very large
open areas, and a wide range of soiltypes.

In the UK regulation of treefelling means that nobody is going to plant
new woodland, or even replant felled woodland. Typically woodland runs
at a (substantial) loss. Better to let it go derelict (probably quite
good for wildlife of some sorts).

Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
without being ploughed up.

Governments attempt to macromanage micromanaged systems they don't
understand, and are inclined to use force where persuasion is more
effective.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Oz
> > wrote:
>
>> >> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species than is
>> >> cultivable land?
>> >
>> >Well, which is more fertile on average?
>> >>
>> >
>> >marginal land does tend to be marginal because of low fertility, and
>> >also because it has been farmed less, as farming can increase the
>> >fertility over time if you are doing it right
>
>> Its also worth remembering that, like humans, wildlife crops biomass.
>> Fertile soils produce more biomass than infertile ones and thus ought to
>> have more wildlife.
>
> And wild animals that can utilise this extra biomass do well with it.
> Wood pigeons are one example
>
>> Of course this isn't true where plants have gained the upper hand, pine
>> forest for example, where biodiversity is low and non-plants relatively
>> scarce compared to non-forest.
>
> I think if you were to assess the flora and fauna of the forest carefully,
> there would be more species there than a cereal field of the same area.
> In terms of biomass, also I suspect because pine trees etc are pretty
> heavy.
>

mind you what is the annual production of biomass from a pine forest,
admittedly the pine forest has the heavier harvest, but what would be the
annual harvest?


> In reality conservationists will be more interested in the Caledonian
> Forest because the life that occurs in cereal fields is commonplace,
> whereas there will be a lot of scarcer species in the forest.
>
common place because we've spent many thousands of years watching it to
ensure it doesn't out compete us for our major food crop ;-))

Jim Webster

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Buxqi > writes
>
> Hmm, I'm a little surprised by that. From what's bandied about organic
> is claimed to be better in efficiency terms than conventional. I suspect
> people ignore the rather high energy cost of handling and processing
> large amounts of bulk manures.

from experience they do, they also ignore the energy cost of any extra
labourers that are used

Jim Webster

Jim Webster > writes
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>> Buxqi > writes
> >
>> Hmm, I'm a little surprised by that. From what's bandied about organic
>> is claimed to be better in efficiency terms than conventional. I suspect
>> people ignore the rather high energy cost of handling and processing
>> large amounts of bulk manures.
>
>from experience they do, they also ignore the energy cost of any extra
>labourers that are used

I have rather excluded labour because people (particularly first world
people) are hugely extravagant in energy terms.

A peasant family with a few arable acres in most parts of the world is
self sufficient (basic clothing, ironwork etc etc included). Note that
this means no surplus other than survival.

A modern UK arable farm with one worker to 1500 arable ac is probably
producing some 1T oil/ac net of energy costs or some 1500T total clear
(about 1,500,000 liters). Its a sign of the times that this barely gives
him a basic wage (up until this year that is). Admittedly the straw is
probably ploughed in but there you go.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

In article >, Oz
> wrote:
> Robert Seago > writes
> >
> >I think if you were to assess the flora and fauna of the forest
> >carefully, there would be more species there than a cereal field of
> >the same area.

> Almost certainly.

> >In terms of biomass, also I suspect because pine trees etc are pretty
> >heavy.

> Its biomass production per year, that's what is available for
> saphrophytes/parasites to utilise in a stable system.

Indeed it is

> >In reality conservationists will be more interested in the Caledonian
> >Forest because the life that occurs in cereal fields is commonplace,
> >whereas there will be a lot of scarcer species in the forest.

> Absolutely.
And as a previous responder said, there are many energy inputs into
farming, apart from the sun.

Many years ago I did a project on energy use in agriculture. While I'm
sure that my efforts would have been severely undermined by peer review,
it seemed that there was more energy being fed in from inputs other than
the sun, than was produced, in the then farming methods prevalent (in the
70's).

In article >, Jim Webster
> wrote:

> >
> > I think if you were to assess the flora and fauna of the forest
> > carefully, there would be more species there than a cereal field of
> > the same area. In terms of biomass, also I suspect because pine trees
> > etc are pretty heavy.
> >

> mind you what is the annual production of biomass from a pine forest,
> admittedly the pine forest has the heavier harvest, but what would be
> the annual harvest?

Indeed.

There is another debate to be had here though. In terms of carbon
sequestration, what would the annual laying down of carbon be in each of
these habitats? We would also have to consider the aspects of fertility
of each substrate to start to look at this.

There was a report, one that I have not seen confirmed that suggested
forest planting in higher lattitudes put more hydrocarbon greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere than the (greenhouse) equivalent CO2 that was removed.
I find this hard to believe actually.

> > In reality conservationists will be more interested in the Caledonian
> > Forest because the life that occurs in cereal fields is commonplace,
> > whereas there will be a lot of scarcer species in the forest.
> >
> common place because we've spent many thousands of years watching it to
> ensure it doesn't out compete us for our major food crop ;-))

> Jim Webster
The common place now is different from the common place of some while ago.
It is this fact that makes me interested in conservation. That is why in
the reality of the situation as it is now, I hope that ways can be found
to accomodate at least some Tree Sparrows and Linnets... , without having
to take up twitching to find them.

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Webster > writes
>>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>>> Buxqi > writes
>> >
>>> Hmm, I'm a little surprised by that. From what's bandied about organic
>>> is claimed to be better in efficiency terms than conventional. I suspect
>>> people ignore the rather high energy cost of handling and processing
>>> large amounts of bulk manures.
>>
>>from experience they do, they also ignore the energy cost of any extra
>>labourers that are used
>
> I have rather excluded labour because people (particularly first world
> people) are hugely extravagant in energy terms.
>
> A peasant family with a few arable acres in most parts of the world is
> self sufficient (basic clothing, ironwork etc etc included). Note that
> this means no surplus other than survival.

you don't have to be a peasant on that sort of income, people like Socrates
regarded less than a ton a year of wheat to be an adequate support for a
family, the hoplite class were defined as owning land producing less than 8
tons a year of wheat. The ability to appreciate art and culture are not
income related ;-)

>
> A modern UK arable farm with one worker to 1500 arable ac is probably
> producing some 1T oil/ac net of energy costs or some 1500T total clear
> (about 1,500,000 liters). Its a sign of the times that this barely gives
> him a basic wage (up until this year that is). Admittedly the straw is
> probably ploughed in but there you go.
>

Exactly, wheat is too cheap

Jim Webster

Robert Seago > writes

>Many years ago I did a project on energy use in agriculture. While I'm sure
>that my efforts would have been severely undermined by peer review, it
>seemed that there was more energy being fed in from inputs other than the
>sun, than was produced, in the then farming methods prevalent (in the 70's).

If you found that in the 70's, let alone today, then you were totally,
mindbogglingly incorrect.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out that 4T (/ac) biomass is
going to be much more energy than a few hundred kg of oil.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Robert Seago > writes
>In article >, Jim Webster
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I think if you were to assess the flora and fauna of the forest
>> > carefully, there would be more species there than a cereal field of
>> > the same area. In terms of biomass, also I suspect because pine trees
>> > etc are pretty heavy.
>> >
>
>> mind you what is the annual production of biomass from a pine forest,
>> admittedly the pine forest has the heavier harvest, but what would be
>> the annual harvest?
>
>Indeed.
>
>There is another debate to be had here though. In terms of carbon
>sequestration, what would the annual laying down of carbon be in each of
>these habitats?

They are stable. Thus there is no net laying down of carbon. Wood rots.

>We would also have to consider the aspects of fertility
>of each substrate to start to look at this.

No we would not.

>There was a report, one that I have not seen confirmed that suggested
>forest planting in higher lattitudes put more hydrocarbon greenhouse gases
>into the atmosphere than the (greenhouse) equivalent CO2 that was removed.
>I find this hard to believe actually.

They were counting the methane and peats in the permafrost as being lost
vs the biomass of the trees (and hopefully roots).

>The common place now is different from the common place of some while ago.
>It is this fact that makes me interested in conservation. That is why in
>the reality of the situation as it is now, I hope that ways can be found
>to accomodate at least some Tree Sparrows and Linnets... , without having
>to take up twitching to find them.

Indeed, but you will have to have them in your garden, which isn't wild
at all. If you want to see them in the wild you will have to twitch.

Ever been to a rainforest? Packed full of high levels of biodiversity
but you will be lucky to see any animals and few birds.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:49:18 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Buxqi > writes
>
>>That's a fair point but one also has to ask whether this is a bit short
>>termist when most of our energy is generated from non-renewable sources.
>
>Its not as simple as that. The thing that most forget is that farmers
>are actually farming sunlight. That is the source of the energy they
>sell, and all food (and even non-food like cotton) is basically energy.

No more so than any of us in any other job. Bit of a nonsense
statement really. Sure you're not going to try and baffle us with
bullshit?

>The most productive sources are cereals. These produce the biggest
>usable biomass output per acre with a few others such as sugar cane,
>potatoes and sugar beet coming in the same league.

We need to use the waste rather than the food though.

>Without modern high input farming yields of all of these are low,
>typically high inputs deliver two to three times the output per acre,

But at great cost to the planet and it's occupants. The cost is way
too high and in the end if allowed to continue will destroy us.

>which is to say they harvest sunlight two to three times more
>efficiently.

Poppycock they use exactly the same amount of sunlight efficiency as
any farming. It's another nonsense statement .

<snip waffle>

"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him
the spinal cord would suffice." - Albert Einstein

In article >,
Oz > wrote:
> Robert Seago > writes

> >Many years ago I did a project on energy use in agriculture. While I'm
> >sure that my efforts would have been severely undermined by peer
> >review, it seemed that there was more energy being fed in from inputs
> >other than the sun, than was produced, in the then farming methods
> >prevalent (in the 70's).

> If you found that in the 70's, let alone today, then you were totally,
> mindbogglingly incorrect.

> You don't have to be a genius to figure out that 4T (/ac) biomass is
> going to be much more energy than a few hundred kg of oil.

Well it's not one of your usula equations quite Oz.

Pity you mixed metric and imperial here. Let's use metric ton and 100kg.
So you have a factor of 40.

Now feed it to animals and divide by at least 10. (Broilers have all
sorts of other energy inputs.) And manufacture the machines etc.....

Not so far off.

The material I cited (in my project) had very much more favourable figures
for other more primitive systems, as they would!

While I accept that my research for a university project was not as
balanced as it ought to have been, your estimate does not seem to make my
suggestions then so mind bogglingly incorrect.

In article >, Oz
> wrote:
>.
> >
> >There is another debate to be had here though. In terms of carbon
> >sequestration, what would the annual laying down of carbon be in each
> >of these habitats?

> They are stable. Thus there is no net laying down of carbon. Wood rots.
That may or may not be true in a climax forest. Certainly the coal measure
swamps must have absorbed carbon for more time than it took to develop an
equilibrium. Peat bogs do.

I have listened to your assertions before that there is an equilibrium of
deposited carbon in soil, which you have suggested can't be alterered but
though I can cite no sourcers, I have no time, I am not convinced. I have
seen a lot of clay, (and light) soils around here which appear to be very
low in organic matter. I compare them with my allotment which is heavy,
which I keep workable with green manures and so on, and its texture is
very much more favourable. No equations but I could demonstrate this to
you.

> >We would also have to consider the aspects of fertility of each
> >substrate to start to look at this.

> No we would not.
We would if we were considering other than mature woodland.

> >There was a report, one that I have not seen confirmed that suggested
> >forest planting in higher lattitudes put more hydrocarbon greenhouse
> >gases into the atmosphere than the (greenhouse) equivalent CO2 that was
> >removed. I find this hard to believe actually.

> They were counting the methane and peats in the permafrost as being lost
> vs the biomass of the trees (and hopefully roots).
In fact they claimed that to have a net effect ameliorating greenhouse gas
content it would need to be < 30degrees lattitude.
> >The common place now is different from the common place of some while
> >ago. It is this fact that makes me interested in conservation. That is
> >why in the reality of the situation as it is now, I hope that ways can
> >be found to accomodate at least some Tree Sparrows and Linnets... ,
> >without having to take up twitching to find them.

> Indeed, but you will have to have them in your garden, which isn't wild
> at all. If you want to see them in the wild you will have to twitch.

Garden birds have indeed done very well. Some farm, woodland and other
birds do indeed come to gardens. Some British birds could not survive in
gardens, the habitat is wrong.

> Ever been to a rainforest? Packed full of high levels of biodiversity
> but you will be lucky to see any animals and few birds.
Yes, and no, the birds have been spectacular.

However in the UK if high grain prices persist, I guess you are right, and
the only approach to seeing once common birds will be to have hot spot
farm reserves such as one or two which have already been set up and have
worked very well. They are a farm equivalent of the large restored
wetlands and heaths which have become the best hope of seeing other things.

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Oz

> I have listened to your assertions before that there is an equilibrium of
> deposited carbon in soil, which you have suggested can't be alterered but
> though I can cite no sourcers, I have no time, I am not convinced. I have
> seen a lot of clay, (and light) soils around here which appear to be very
> low in organic matter. I compare them with my allotment which is heavy,
> which I keep workable with green manures and so on, and its texture is
> very much more favourable. No equations but I could demonstrate this to
> you.
>
it may be time dependent, walk away and leave it for a thousand years and it
is back to whatever is its steady state.

Jim Webster

Robert Seago > writes
>> You don't have to be a genius to figure out that 4T (/ac) biomass is
>> going to be much more energy than a few hundred kg of oil.
>
>Well it's not one of your usula equations quite Oz.
>
>Pity you mixed metric and imperial here.

Not really, a metric tonne is so close to an imperial that everyone uses
T for metric tonne. Imperial tons are so passe.

>Let's use metric ton and 100kg. So
>you have a factor of 40.
>
>Now feed it to animals and divide by at least 10.

Whats that got to do with it?
You have to say just the same with organic food too.

>(Broilers have all sorts
>of other energy inputs.) And manufacture the machines etc.....
>
>Not so far off.

Because you aren't comparing like with like.
A fools example.

>The material I cited (in my project) had very much more favourable figures
>for other more primitive systems, as they would!
>
>While I accept that my research for a university project was not as balanced
>as it ought to have been, your estimate does not seem to make my suggestions
>then so mind bogglingly incorrect.

It most certainly does. In fact high intensity animal farming is much
more efficient than low intensity because of the effect of maintenance.
In true (old fashioned) organic systems the cattle only really whanged
on weight during three or four months of spring. The rest of the time
they were close to maintenance with lots of food energy going in (grass
etc) with zero gain in weight for an efficiency of 0%.

As one whose survival depended on sorting out how to produce in the most
efficient manner in reality, vs a (pseudo) academic exerci se, you would
be wise to be careful bandying real figures with me. As a semi-academic
myself I did them for real, and actually used them. If it didn't work, I
went bust.

I would be delighted to run you through the economic realities of
feeding livestock at the most efficient manner.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.